Talk:List of X-Men members

Consensus on Captain Krakoa
@Eijikkieru, @Higher Further Faster, @Hotwiki, @DrBat, @Gtrmp, @AlligatorSky, @Lipshiz, @Omnipaedista, @BD2412 and also @Dimadick, you have been invited here because of being top editors of some X-Men pages along with being active at Wikipedia last month; as the top contributors of this page are either retired, blocked or had simply stopped editing. The invitation is for the consensus on whether Captain Krakoa should be added alongside Cyclops or not; on the basis of recent comics of X-Men (Volume 6) and on the basis of these references which were already provided above discussions. ( and ) Sewnbegun (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Hotwiki (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also oppose, Captain Krakoa was just a disguise for Cyclops in X-Men (vol. 6). AlligatorSky (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is my reasoning as well. Hotwiki (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same reasoning as above. Eijikkieru (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears we can finally close this suggestion, originally proposed by the blocked editor User:Ringardiumleviossa by not adding Captain Krakoa as a codename of Cyclops as a member of the X-Men. Hotwiki (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should close this discussion since the consensus is very clear against it. Sewnbegun (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, may I add, you changed certain words to "this team", thats not encyclopedic and not very formal way of writing. Don't also remove the current description to Lucid, especially that character has no Wikipedia article to check/read. So a more substantial description for Lucid, instead of just a "honorable mention" would be better. You keep changing a dozen of things here that aren't very helpful, and it is really reminiscent of the blocked User:Ringardiumleviossa. Can an administrator, please check if User:Ringardiumleviossa and User:Sewnbegun are the same editor? I don't really know how to file a report on Sockpuppet investigation, a help would be appreciated in this situation. Hotwiki (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also for those names, you don't need to add a reference to every single name in this article, especially if those names weren't being challenged or questioned in the first place. A reference for each character joining the X-Men, specifically a reference to the comic-book issue in which they joined as a member is enough. Hotwiki (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hotwiki, firstly, you reverted Ringardiumleviossa's edits when they made changes in this page on the basis of as per Wikipedia page - . And now let me repeat your word when you reverted my edits - (Again, you don't really need to add a reference to every single name, especially those who have a Wikipedia article. This is a list of X-Men members. Not list of names of X-Men characters.). Secondly, I also noticed you only choose only certain names from Ringardiumleviossa's proposal and till this date you keep reverting any changes in name section (if they are different from your original edit) until they are referenced. And now here you say these names don't need to be referenced? I still don't get the meaning of both of above mentioned situation. You even reverted my all edits not even thinking that some of the names were being challenged and changed by providing reliable sources. I think you are very good editor on the Wikipedia and very busy one but at least watch/read the changes in the edits and not just peak over it so that you know that not all changes/edits are invalid and then make appropriate edits instead of reverting it all. I understand your point that not all names need references and it is the page of list of X-men members (and not of names), but if I had made any unreferenced edit, it would have been reverted back. If I have to change certain names which are misinformed in this article, I will have to provide references. I am not going to add the sources to every name this time, just only those which are misinformed or incomplete here. Thank you! Sewnbegun (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Based from your edits, you seemed to accomplish what User:Ringardiumleviossa what wanted to do in the article. Your account was created, the day after User:Ringardiumleviossa was blocked in Wikipedia. When it comes to wanting to mention "Captain Krakoa" in this article, you both share the same opinion. Both of your sandbox are suspiciously the same. Based from talk page activity of this article, aside from me, you are heavily active discussing changes just like the blocked editor. Like the blocked editor you are constantly making "drastic" changes into this article, and doesn't seem to be editing plenty of other articles aside from this one. since I noticed you, in the talk page of Ringardiumleviossa, can I ask if you could help me about a sockpuppet investigation, if  is connected to Ringardiumleviossa. Their editing pattern is suspiciously very similar. Hotwiki (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hotwiki I didn't have the same opinion in the Captain Krakoa as Ringardiumleviossa. Read above talks again and you know I never said I wanted Captain Krakoa codename to be added because in fact I wanted to go with consensus instead. That is why I added Consensus on Captain Krakoa talk and also because you keep reverting my edits and I was angry because of this talk . @CoffeeCrumbs understand what is happening by reading exact above reply and the discussion here, because Hotwiki is always controlling this page. Reverting unreferenced change? I get that, but why revert whole and every edits without checking that there could be some valid information there. Also, I am not accomplishing Ringardiuleviossa's proposal, all I am doing is just editing on the basis of reliable sources. So you can't remove those without discussing first. I do edit this page primarily from few days because I am also editing the same articles in various websites (including Marvel Database/Wiki) and if you see my edit history, I have also edited some different Wikipedia pages too. And again I am telling, you are welcome to sock puppet investigation on me. Sewnbegun (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I will oppose because of the same reasoning as above. Teedbunny (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This discussion needs to be closed. Teedbunny (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus of ForgetMeNot and Woofer (again).
Hello to everyone - @BD2412, @Dimadick, @Eijikkieru, @Higher Further Faster, @Hotwiki, @DrBat, @Gtrmp, @AlligatorSky, @Lipshiz, @Omnipaedista and @Sewnbegun. You all are invited from previous consensus. Last year in this discusssion, there weren't any reliable source back then and it was decided that we should wait for few more comics to add him in the main list of X-Men. So I have also invited @Storm1221, @ToshiroIto7 to see if they still maintain their opinion from previous talks. The first thing I would like to talk about is ForgetMeNot's position in this page, he is added in Other status section, even though he is official member of X-Men according to handbooks (also sources). He is neither an infiltrator nor an honorary member so how come he have any other status instead of official member. If it is about his power of being forgotten, we can add a note as well as notelist section to mention his powers. We should move him to the main list. Secondly, even if Woofer is not added to the main list, he is still currently eligible to be added as honorary member of X-Men. Let me explain why. Lucid was made member by then X-Man Storm -. Woofer was made member by now X-Man Shadowkat in X-Men, vol. 6 #25 -. As per previous talk, we waited and again he was implied to be an X-Man in Fall of the House of X #3 -. It's not like we don't have any references, we have a reliable secondary source (because it was already asked for in previous talks in this page) - We should also know that definition of X-Men members is gray and that's why many editors on this page have sticked to different handbooks of Marvel Comics but till the new handbook, we should include Woofer as honorary member. Hoping for response/feedback on consensus of both ForgetMeNot and Woofer in some days. 2409:40C1:1006:ACEB:CEC:BAB6:F1A4:A58B (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Not this again with Woofer. How about we wait for an official handbook from Marvel Comics rather than jumping to conclusion once again. This was already discussed before. Hotwiki (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As for ForgetMeNot, I also disagree. He's in other status for a reason. He was retconned as a long time member, yet his actual membership date isn't very clear. Hotwiki (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also may I add, Woofer's appearance in Fall of the House of X doesn't change anything. He's still not ever seen with the current X-Men team. Hotwiki (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We didn't waited for handbook during Synch, Prodigy, Rasputin IV and Ms. Marvel's inclusion. In fact Rasputin IV don't even have a reliable source. Sewnbegun (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We didn't wait for the handbook because it was CLEAR they are part of the current team, unless you are questioning the membership of those four members. Woofer is a different case especially there are different opinions in this talk page, if he is a member of the X-Men. I stand by my opinion. Keep Woofer out of the list and keep ForgetMeNot in other status section. Hotwiki (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hotwiki No, I am also against with Woofer added in team too. But I also agree with that if Woofer is seen with X-Men, we have to add him atleast as honorary member. I don't he qualifies as official X-Men unless it is proven in future handbook. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again what is presented in X-Men #25 and Fall of the House of X #3 are similar. Woofer is STILL not seen with the current X-Men team. If a handbook from Marvel Comics mentions him as a member, then add him. But until that doesn't happen, keep him out of the list. Hotwiki (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, if he is seen clearly with X-Men and is called an X-Men before. It clears everything. He needs to be mentioned as X-Men. We can always remove him if handbooks is not mentioning him. Just like you did two year before when you remove many members from this page when X of Swords (which is right by the way). Sewnbegun (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are assuming he will be seen with the X-Men which we can't say for certain will happen. Me mentioning an updated handbook doesn't automatically mean, "handbooks" are only the source of information in this article. This article didn't need a handbook reference, for those who were/are clearly members of the X-Men fyi. Hotwiki (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am not into adding him RIGHT NOW, only IF he is seen alongside X-Men. also yes, handbooks aren't the only source of this article - he already does have a source. I am also against him in adding in the main team but we have to at least add him as honorary member because he is called an X-Man. We should wait and see what the future comics hold. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am not questioning the other members but I was pointing out that Rasputin IV don't have a reliable source while Woofer have. It was clear to add them because they were seen alongside X-Men and were declared X-Men and so that should shall be the case with Woofer he is seen alongside X-Men. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't why you are suddenly making this about Rasputin IV. If you read the comics, you will see that she is with the current X-Men since X-Men #25 (2023) with other members such as Shadowkat, Talon, Synch and Kamala Khan. If your problem is lack of reliable source for Rasputin IV, you can surely find a better reference or comic book scans. Hotwiki (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was making another point which you got to to read again in my previous reply to avoid misunderstanding. I am not suddenly making this about Rasputin IV. If I was challenging her membership, I would have simply had her removed on the basis of unreferenced. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So is this you ? The only edit of that Ip user is oddly similar to your edit when you asked for the consensus for Captain Krakoa. Hotwiki (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't done those edits. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you realize how similar your edits are to these Ip users who have only edited this 1 article in Wikipedia? You haven't been cleared by an administrator for not being connected User:Ringardiumleviossa. Thats why I remain suspicious of your editing. Then these Ip users, suddenly doing massive edits in the article (in a short period of time) doing drastic changes that somehow align to your edits, and also doing talk page consensus? I've seen a couple of sockpuppet investigations in my almost 20 years stay in Wikipedia, and this is usually how sockpuppetry is caught. Either jumping through another Ip or switching to a different account, to manipulate the outcome of the article. Hotwiki (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that I have nothing to do with those edits, I think that blocked user is doing this from different IP. I don't align with, it is just I don't revert every edits and let them be which are correct, referenced and many time, I also check if the edits are done are correct or not before reverting back or making any change. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh now you think this is the blocked editor Ringardiumleviossa editing in different IP users. The blocked editor that has the same editing patterns as you, from my observation. And somehow you seem to agree on every change from these "suspicious" IP users? Okay. Hotwiki (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't always agree if see the talks in this page clearly instead of proving that I am that blocked editor. And again I don't revert everything, I checked them and if they are right, referenced or on majority consensus. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the change of ForgetMeNot, only because of the point that he is official member and not a member of different status. Although I differ in opinion that Woofer should be added, for now atleast. It was decided in the previous talk to wait for atleast his three appearances which is not completed yet. If in future issues of current X-Men headling comics (X-Men, vol. 6 or Fall of the House of X), he appears alongside X-Men we can add him as honorary member. If you insist to add him in main list, we will have to wait for next handbook. Sewnbegun (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ForgetMeNot has been more of a covert operative, who has had minimal interactions with his teammates. There are not many sources on Woofer, since he is a brand new character. According to the Marvel Database wiki, he has a total of 4 appearances since his debut in May, 2023. Dimadick (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that both ForgetMeNot and Woofer should be included in the Honorary Section. I'm not going to explain why because ultimately this page does not follow consensus and it'd be a complete waste of time.Storm1221 (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with ForgetMeNot's proposal but disagree with Woofer's. Teedbunny (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Woofer (and arguments here) was mentioned in the AIPT's X-Men Monday #252. Jordan said it's fine to consider him an honorary member. Eijikkieru (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * AIPT isn't a reliable site.Hotwiki (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I know. I'm not joining the consensus on this subject, I'm just stating what the X-Men editor said in the interview. Eijikkieru (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Drastically changing the order of the members
I noticed an Ip user have made their first edit in this article, drastically changing the order of the members and also changing the opening lead like as if there was anything wrong. Then when I reverted it,, reverted it to that edit of the Ip User. From last month, it just seems quite suspicious "drastic" changes have been happening from IP users in the article. These IP users who haven't edited in the past and making their 1st edit in this article. And those edits usually lined up / are always in favor with. Hotwiki (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also in the same day, another Ip user made their FIRST edit in this talk page. It IS their only edit in Wikipedia as of now. And once again agreed to that Ip user. I'm really suspicious if these Ip users and Sewnbegun are just one person and Sewnbegun is jumping through different ips and making these drastic changes to the article. I'm also still suspicious about  related to the blocked editor User:Ringardiumleviossa, that editor was blocked for sockpuppetry and I have made a list in this talkpage of why I think Sewnbegun/the blocked editor Ringardiumleviossa, are the same person in the past here I just haven't reported it to the administrators yet, because there's a long wait list in Sockpuppet Investigation and I haven't properly reported anyone yet for sockpuppet investigation.
 * Hotwiki (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly want to hear the opinion from other editors aside from Sewnbegun about this. I think you might be aware of most of the discussion in the last several weeks. The editing of Sewnbegun/Ringardiumleviossa are quite similar. Also in the past, I haven't any encountered IP users making/proposing BIG changes to this article, especially for their FIRST edit in Wikipedia, until Ringardiumleviossa was blocked and Sewnbegun started editing this article. Very suspicious. This talkpage proposal alone couldn't come from someone who isn't invested about this article in the past. Hotwiki (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From March 2024. These are the Ip users that made their first EDIT in Wikipedia through this article:Hotwiki (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then these are the IP users that made their 1st edit in Wikipedia through the talkpage of this article, in March 2024:Hotwiki (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hotwiki, I have this article on my watchlist and probably so do you, and unlike others I read what edits are done before reverting. Why removed the chronological order of Time displaced X-Men and Genoshan assult team? They are legit because when the edits were made by the IP addresses, I read those comics to confirm which I am still doing currently. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All Genoshan Assault X-Men members joined in the same issue. All 5 time displaced original X-Men member also joined in the same issue. So changing of the order is not really needed. Hotwiki (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is true @Hotwiki but let me explain, time displaced X-Men are the same X-Men of Earth-616 (just displaced in time and finally send back) so they had joined that in same order as original members because they themselves are original members - Cyclops, Iceman, Beast, Angel, Marvel Girl.
 * No let's talk about Genoshan assault team. Nightcrawler, Wolverine, Banshee, Storm, Sunfire, Colossus, Thunderbird on this article had joined in the same issue but are listed in the chronological order of when Professor X recruited them (like he recruited Nightcrawler first and Thunderbird last). When I read Uncanny X-Men #392 yesterday, it was clear that Jean Grey had recruited the members in the order of Frenzy, Northstar, Wraith, Omerta, Sunpyre and lastly Dazzler.
 * I checked it and actually read those edits before reverting or making any changes. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree, its not necessary. The order has been like this for years and no one had an issue about it. The only TWO that want to change is you and this IP user. Hotwiki (talk) 05:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you control this page so much, it is not like wat you decide/agree will happen in this article? Again I might clear, I checked and re-read those comics If the order is been in years that doesn't mean it can't be changed if the necessity arrives or they are evident. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative site. If an editor sees they have a good reason to revert something, they are allowed to do that. Hotwiki (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is collaborative site and yet you revert everything (not something) without watching. What about the reason of being what is right/evident? What about the reason of being organisation. Anyways, if you also see the handbooks of the order of same character joining in same comics in the handbooks, they are alphabetical except those whose chronological joining order is clear. It is another evidence., and . Let me about this issue in teahouse to other experience editors. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't revert everything. One of those links shows your edit, which I didn't revert. Hotwiki (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because you have no solid reason to revert them anyway. You reverted many names, so I had to add references to prove it. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I simply reverted back the order which was already in the article for years in the first place. You claimed I revert everything in this article, and I just gave you 3 edits from this month, from 3 different editors that I didn't revert. One of those 3 is you. Hotwiki (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyways, according to Manual of Style/Comics, one of the list format is chronological order (which this page is) but what about those whose chronological order is not clear, there is also another format mentioned which is alphabetical order. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I already disagreed with your proposed changes. Wait for others to comment about this. Hotwiki (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah maybe you just reverted back the order which was already in year but when it need to be change because of proven points, you still did not agreed. Wikipedia is collaborative site. It is not I am doing any fancruft here. I presented it with points. Sewnbegun (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I didn't agree and you were also told by me to discuss this in the talk page. So other editors can have their own say. I said my case, and wait for other editors to futher comment on this. Hotwiki (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So on the basis of handbook orders; some similarities (in order) of the main team and sub-team; chronological joining order; and Manual of Style/Comics formats, I am going to make some correction for the sake of organisation. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, wait for a consensus. You do know you are edit warring, by making a change that someone already disagreed with. This is why Talk pages exist, to prevent edit wars. So don't revert in the article, and wait for a consensus. Hotwiki (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am only editing because of all the evidence/points I laid out. I will wait for 1-2 days for the sake of consensus but I have to make those changes because not many editor participate actively in this talk page. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats not how consensus work. If there aren't more editors that agree with your proposed changes. You can't be restoring something which someone already disagreed with. Hotwiki (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Lets invite some those who have participated last day on previous talk. @Dimadick, @Storm1221, can you read this topic please and give your feedbacks? Sewnbegun (talk) 06:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll also ask about this issue in Teahouse too. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you feel that way @Hotwiki, you can say anything but maybe you should see this points; and regarding other editors, we both know not many editors are constantly active in this page except you, me and probably that blocked user using different IP. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That blocked editor which is NOT clear if you aren't connected to that blocked editor. I think we have exhausted this topic in this talk.page. I'll just make a sockpuppet investigation petiti9n this week, so administrators can finally review your account/edits. These numerous IP users will be mentioned as well. Hotwiki (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can do that investigation. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hotwiki, according to Consensus, we can opt for third party opinion, which is here related to this issue. Sewnbegun (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's still no consensus in this talkpage, so I don't know why you are reverting it again. I already told you to wait for more editors to share their thoughts. Also the opening paragraph is fine as it is. Hotwiki (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I had invite two more editors (for third party opinion) who are lastly active in this talk page, because there is no more than two editors active currently includiny you and me. They are still active on Wikipedia but chose not engage so I sought third party opinion in Teahouse, which is totally okay if you read Consensus. So I made the edit on the basis of that. I am again open to wait for a weak but we don't have to ignore that teahouse opinion, won't we? Anyway I am going to request a comment too. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can see in this talkpage, there IS one ACTIVE member that is in total disagreement with this change and suggested to wait for more editors to share their thoughts. What you are doing by reverting to the version of the "IP user" which you think is from the blocked editor User:Ringardiumleviossa by the way, is disruptive editing. Hotwiki (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not reverting to the version of the "IP user". See clearly please. I only made the revert on the basis of order patterns already in some sections of this afticle (order patterns now I think need correction, even if it has been in here for years). To less degree also on the basis of handbooks. On the basis of list formats that are clearly listed on Manual of Style (Comics) (which clearly don't need consensus but I am going to wait). And lastly on the basis of the answer I got from teahouse. Sewnbegun (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you were told to wait for consensus and for other editors to make a comment in this talkpage and you didn't, and went ahead by reverting again. This discussion in the talkpage was started by me, to prevent edit warring and for other editors to share their thoughts. You shouldn't revert to a contested version of the article, just because you couldn't wait for more editors to chime in. It hasn't been that long as well. Hotwiki (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. Teedbunny (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you were told to wait for consensus and for other editors to make a comment in this talkpage and you didn't, and went ahead by reverting again. This discussion in the talkpage was started by me, to prevent edit warring and for other editors to share their thoughts. You shouldn't revert to a contested version of the article, just because you couldn't wait for more editors to chime in. It hasn't been that long as well. Hotwiki (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This page is very stable and if are to focus on presentation, there is already sortable order in this page, chronological order and alphabetical order will be great from the view of both presentation and logic. Teedbunny (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Character's linking
Link the X-Men member Trinary in 2010s section with Trinary (comics). Vinbrad (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for noticing the missing link. Keep up the good work. Dimadick (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)